2014 03-13 Planning and Designing for Cyclists

Planning and Designing for CyclistsPeter Leslie – Senior Engineer

By the end of this workshop, candidates will be able to:

1. Discuss current policy and guidance aiding the delivery of cycle infrastructure in Scotland.

2. Identify design principles for planning and designing for cyclists.

3. Explain the basic principles of retrofitting cycle route design into existing infrastructure.

Learning Outcomes

3

By 2020, 10% of all journeys in

Scotland will be by bike.

180km of routes designed and installed

Over 800km reviewed/audited

Loon fae Aberdeen

Change Behaviour

Why was I not on site for the M77 / M74 / AWPR?

Cycle Action Plan for Scotland

Sustrans (Funding)

CSGN - Planning

How would you look to change people towards cycling in Aberdeen?

You - What is your role

New Bridge for Cyclists

Park and Bike

Segregation along the Parkway?

You - What is your role

9

www.satinonline.org

10

Active Travel Design Manuals

Netherlands - Crow – Design manual for bicycle traffic

UK – DFT – Cycle Infrastructure Design Scotland – TS - Cycling By Design 2010

http://www.crow.nl/nl/Publicaties/publicatiedetail.aspx?code=REC25

http://www.crow.nl/nl/Publicaties/publicatiedetail.aspx?code=REC25

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/strategy-and-research/publications-and-consultations/cycling-by-design

11

Active Travel Design Manuals

UK – TFL – London Design Standards Scotland – TS – Designing Streets

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/03/22120652/0

12

Sustrans Publications - Guidelines

Connect 2 and Greenway Design Guide – 2007 The NCN – Guidelines and Practical Details -1997 Making Ways for the Bicycle – 1994 Greenways design guide Audit before payment Practical example

www.sustrans.org.uk/resources

11/04/202313 Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide

Introduction

Presentation Content

• Why Cycling by Design?

• The Evolution of Cycling by Design

• A Tour of the Document

• The Cycle Audit Process

• Summary

14 11/04/2023 Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide

Why Cycling by Design?


Trunk Road Cycling Initiative

•Trunk Road Cycling Initiative launched November 1995

•Five Actions Detailed in Office Instruction 3/96

• Trunk Road/NCN Development

• Co-operation with Sustrans

• Redetermination of footways

• A74(M) Cycleway

• Consideration of cyclists in all new schemes

Policy

Led to the Creation of Cycling by Design 1999


CAPS

•Launched June 2010 by Transport Minister

•Contains 17 Actions to Promote Cycling in Scotland

• Skills Development

• The Network

• Delivery

•Multi-agency Approach

Policy

Vision: By 2020, 10% of All Journeys Taken in Scotland by Bike


CAPS

CBD Supports several CAPS actions, but especially:

Action 8: To promote the use of planning policy, access legislation and design guidance to a wide range of professionals; and to promote the outcomes of access legislation in the form of leisure activities.

Outcome 8: More well designed, accessible cycling facilities across Scotland

Policy

CBD is the Design Guidance outlined in CAPS


Road Safety

•Cyclists recognised as having less protection if an accident occurs

•Accidents involving vulnerable users including cyclists one of four main accident types

•Action 11: “…improve cycling provision with cycle friendly design”

Policy


Scotland PLC Tourism

VisitScotland figures (2003):

• Cycle tourism responsible for 1 million trips to Scotland (8% of all visitors)

• Revenue from cycle tourism: £219 Million

• 50% increase in cycle tourism by 2015

• Scotland is a world leader in mountain biking

• Sustrans National Cycle Network


Scotland PLC Tourism

National Cycle Network Trunk Road Network

High Interaction between NCN and Trunk Road Network


Designing Streets

• Complements principles

• Encourages direct and coherent routes for cyclists

• Has presumption in favour of cyclists at access controls

• Promotes permeability

• Recognises at low volume/low speed dedicated facilities may not be required

• CBD intended for wider area application, not just residential streets

Policy

CBD Compliments Designing Streets

11/04/202322 Cycling by Design - 2010 Edition

Why Cycling by Design? Policy

Cycling by Design aims to Implement these Policies for Cyclists

Barriers to Cycling

What factors deter you from cycling / cycling more often?

29

7 6 610

26

1012

0

10

20

30

40

50

Dangerfromtraffic

Notenough

roadspace

Lack ofgood

routes

Noaccessto bike

Journeytime too

long

Weather Toophysical

Other

%

Barriers to Cycling

What is the principal factor that deters you from cycling/ cycling more often?


Why Cycling by Design? Policy

Infrastructure Related Issues - 49% of Responses Good Quality Design an Imperative!

24 11/04/2023 Cycling by Design - 2010 Edition

Evolution of Cycling by Design


Background

• Cycling by Design originally published 1999 as a consultative draft

• Updated June 2010

• Contains information on cyclists’ needs, network planning, geometric standards and cycle audit

• Consideration mandatory on the Trunk Road network

• Commended for use by local authorities and others

Cycling by Design


2010 Update Process

Cycling by Design 1999

Technical ExpertiseCycle Designers, Roads Designers, Accessibility experts, Economists,

Planners, Environmental Consultants, Maintenance experts,

Road Safety Auditors

Disability Discrimination ActTransport Scotland’s Good Practice Guide for Roads

Independent Review Fife Council

City of Edinburgh CouncilGlasgow City CouncilForestry Commission

Sustrans

Good Practice Design Examples

East RenfrewshireClackmannanshireCity of Edinburgh

FifeDumfries & Galloway

Argyll & ButeHighland

Technical GuidanceUK Cycle Design Guidance

(DfT, TfL, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, SESTRANS,

Edinburgh)UK Roads Design Guidance (DMRB, Transport Scotland)

European Cycle Design Guidance (CROW, Malmo, Copenhagen, Danish Cycle

Parking)


1999 ConsultationComments received

Cycling by Design

27 11/04/2023 Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide

A Tour of The Document



1. Introduction

2. Planning for Cyclists

3. Geometric Design

4. Traffic Volume & Speed

5. Allocating Carriageway Space

6. Off-Carriageway Facilities

7. Junctions & Crossings

8. Cycle Parking

9. Public Transport Integration

10.Construction & Maintenance

11.Cycle Audit System

Appendices

Document Tour

11/04/202329

Overview

Workshop

• Cyclists’ Needs & Trip Purposes

• Core Design Principles

• Hierarchy of Measures

Review

• Link Specification Guide

• Network Planning Process

Planning for Cyclists

Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide

11/04/202330

Hierarchy of Measures Planning for Cyclists


11/04/202331

On or Off Carriageway? Planning for Cyclists


11/04/202332

Network Planning Process Planning for Cyclists


Skill Level

Skill Level• Novice;• Intermediate; and• Experienced.

Journeys completed by Cyclists

• Neighbourhood• Commuting• School• Day Trips• Touring• Sports

(Based on CBD 2010)

Design Principles

• Coherence – • Door step

• Directness – • Time Saving

• Safety – • Feel Safe

• Comfort – • Surface

• Attractiveness – • Fit Surroundings

11/04/202336


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202337

Overview

Workshop

• Cycle Design Speed

What would you use as a design speed?

Review

• Visibility Parameters

• Alignment

Geometric Design


11/04/202338

Design Speed & Visibility Geometric Design

1.0m(min)

Eye Height2.2m max

Visibility Envelope

Dynamic Sight Distance

1.0m(min)

Eye Height2.2m max

1.0m(min)

2.2m

Eye Height2.2m max

Visibility Envelope

Stopping Sight Distance

Dynamic Sight Distance Stopping Sight Distance


Design parameter

Network hierarchy

Long distance/ commuter Local access

Design Speed (kph)30 20

Minimum Dynamic Sight Distance (DSD) (m)65 45

Minimum Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) (m)35 25

11/04/202339

Design Speed & Visibility Geometric Design

CycleRoute

Visibility Envelope

Carriageway

Y-Distance(Refer to Table 3.3)

Y-Distance(Refer to Table 3.3)

X-Distance(Refer to Table 3.2)

Junction/Crossing Visibility Splay


‘X’ distance (m) Control and Comments

4.0m Cycle route approach to a road – Desirable Minimum

2.0m Cycle route approach to a road – Absolute Minimum

1.0m ‘Jug handle’ crossing* – Absolute Minimum

85th Percentile speed of main road vehicles (kph)

120 100 85 70 60 50 30

Y-Distance (m) * 295 215 160 120 90 70 35

Also Reduced Values for Cycle/Pedestrian Networks in CBD

11/04/202340

Vertical & Horizontal Alignment Geometric Design


Design parameter

Network hierarchy

Long distance/ commuter Local access

Design Speed (kph) 30 20

Minimum Dynamic Sight Distance (DSD) (m) 65 45

Minimum Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) (m) 35 25

Horizontal alignment Desirable Minimum Radius (m) 25 15

Minimum Bellmouth Radius at junctions (m)

4.0 4.0

Vertical alignment Desirable Minimum Crest (k) 14.1 6.8

Absolute Minimum Crest (k) 5.3 1.3

Sag values are not likely to be a controlling factor at cycle speeds and are, therefore, not specified.

Gradient Desirable Maximum 3% 3%

Absolute Maximum* 7% 7%

Crossfall Absolute Maximum 2.5% 2.5%

11/04/202341

Vertical Alignment - DDA Geometric Design


Location Gradient

General cycle facility Desirable Maximum 3%

Absolute Maximum 5%7%

Over 5m*Over 10m*

On the immediate approach to priority junctions Absolute Maximum 3%

On the approach ramp to a bridge or subway (7% also requires speed controls)

Desirable Maximum 3%

Absolute Maximum 5%7%

Over 5m*Over 10m*

*DDA Implication – Gradients Above 5% are Considered a Ramp

11/04/202342

Facilities for Disabled People Geometric Design


Rest Areas on an Off-road Route Rest Areas on a Bridge Structure

11/04/202343


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202344

Overview

• Appropriate Carriageway Conditions

• Traffic Management

• Traffic Calming

• Rural Situations

Traffic Volume & Speed


11/04/202345

Carriageway Conditions Traffic Volume & Speed


Good Conditions: <3,000 veh/day and <35kph 85th %ile speed

11/04/202346

Traffic Management Traffic Volume & Speed

1.5m Desirable Minimum1.2m Absolute Minimum

Tw

o way road


Build-out may be provided to preventparked cars obstructing cyclists.

Various features may be used tocreate road closures:- Extended footway- Landscape planters/tree planting- Permanent and lockable bollards- Emergency gates

Diag No.955Diag No.616

Bollards

Diag No.616Diag No.955


Build-out may be provided toprevent gap being obstructed by

parked cars.Bollards

Bollards

Minor Road Closure

False One-way Street


Presumption Cyclists Exempt from Access Restrictions & One Way Streets

11/04/202347

Traffic Calming Traffic Volume & Speed

Central Island Pinch Point

1.5m desirable min1.2m absolute min

Segregation kerb of min 0.5m widthto prevent vehicles encroaching oncycle lane.

Crossing pointwhere appropriate

CycleLane


CycleLane

Clearance strip of min 0.5mwidth to discourage

encroachment on cycle lane

Verge marker postVerge marker post

3.0m

Verge marker posts

Verge marker posts

W

A

Verge marker posts

Verge marker posts

Chicane


Desirable Min 1.5m, Absolute Min 1.2m – But don’t forget the Gullies!

11/04/202348

Rural Situations Traffic Volume & Speed

Road closure or gate. Gatecan be left locked or unlocked.

Field Access

Signs and combinations of signs to be used forrestricted access to roads. Further options include:

- Weight/width restrictions- "unfit for Motor Traffic" sign- "Road Closed...Miles Ahead" sign- "Gated Road" sign

1.2m min1.5mpreferredmax.

Optionalcattle grid

Diag No. 619 Diag No. 816

Diag No. 620 Diag No. 954.4

Typical Restricted Access Plan

Typical Gated Road Closure


11/04/202349


Introduction


2. Geometric Design





7. Cycle Parking


9. Construction & Maintenance


Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202350

Overview

Workshop

• Cycle Lanes

Width of Lanes?

• Kerb Segregated Cycle Lanes

Two Way verus One Way

• Bus Lanes

Width?

• Cycle Lanes at Bus Stops

Design out the issue

Carriageway Space


11/04/202351

Cycle Lanes Carriageway Space


11/04/202352



Standard Width (m) Comments

Maximum Width 2.5*Lanes of this width should be used where cycle flows are expected to be >150 cycles/ peak hour and therefore cycles overtaking within the lane can be expected.

Desirable Minimum Width 2.0*The minimum width that should be considered for a cycle lane with width for cyclists to pass each other.

Absolute Minimum Width 1.5**The running width of the lane should be free from obstructions such as debris and unsafe gullies.

* Cycle lanes over 2.0m wide in areas of car parking may attract drivers to park in them. Physical barriers, mandatory lane markings or parking and loading restrictions can prevent this.

** Lane widths narrower than 1.5m can present a hazard to cyclists and motor vehicle drivers. Only in exceptional circumstances should widths down to 1.0m be considered where it is safe to do so – for example where stationary traffic blocks the route to an advance stop line and the proposed lane is safe from obstructions such as gullies.

Similar Tables also Provided for Contraflow and Kerbed Cycle Lanes

Diag. 1040.4 hatching.1 in 10 taper

Refer to Table 5.2

Diag 1024(1600 high)

Diag.1004

Diag. 1057 at regular intervalsover length of parking bays

Colouredsurfacing

Parking bays

Parking bays

Refer to Table 5.3

Footway

Footway

11/04/202353



StandardWidth

(m)Comments

Desirable Minimum

1.0*Ensures that a cyclist does not need to deviate if a car door is opened fully.

Absolute Minimum

0.5

Will require a cyclist to deviate within the cycle lane if a car door is opened. The cycle lane width in this case should be at least 1.5m, otherwise the cyclist will need to leave the cycle lane to avoid collision.

* Where required, a clearance strip of 1.5m will permit access for disabled people, without affecting cyclists using an adjacent lane.

11/04/202354

Dealing with Bus Stops Carriageway Space

Nominal footprint ofbus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m.

Mandatorycycle lane

Advisorycycle lane

Mandatorycycle lane

Back offootway Nominal 12m

Bus Layby

Nominal footprint ofbus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m

2m desirable min(1.5m absolute min)

Kerb-faceinlet gullies

Refer toTable 5.2

Footway

Tactile Paving& Drop kerbs

Tactile Paving& Drop kerbs

Mandatorycycle lane

Mandatory cycle lane

Back of footway

Refer toTable 5.2

Access kerb & transitionsNominal 7.6m

Nominal footprint ofbus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m.

ramp1.8m

ramp1.8m

Mandatorycycle lane

Mandatorycycle lane

0.5m

ramp3.6m

ramp3.6m

0.5m

Kerb faceinlet gullies


Guidance on On/Off-Street Transitions also Given

11/04/202355

Bus Lanes Carriageway Space


Standard Width (m) Comments*

Optimal Width 4.6

This width allows a bus to pass a cyclist within the bus lane. A 1.5m wide advisory cycle lane may be provided within the bus lane if considered desirable.

Desirable Minimum Width

4.25

Although a bus is still able to pass a cyclist within the bus lane, safe passing width is affected and this width of lane should only be provided over short distances. A 1.2m wide advisory cycle lane may be provided within the bus lane if desirable.

Absolute Minimum Width

4.0

An Absolute Minimum width of 4.0m allows cyclists to pass stopped buses within the bus lane but may encourage unsafe overtaking of cyclists by buses, particularly where the adjacent traffic lane has queuing traffic.

Limiting Width 3.0 – 3.2

The width of the bus lane to prevent overtaking within the lane itself. A bus will be required to straddle adjacent lanes to pass a cyclist, thereby encouraging safe overtaking.

Lane Widths between 3.2m and 4m Should be Avoided

11/04/202356


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202357

Overview

• Principles

• Cycleways

• Cycle Paths

• Vehicle Restricted Areas

• Access Controls

Off-Carriageway Facilities


11/04/202358

When to Segregate? Off-Carriageway Facilities

1000 peds/hr/metre width (0.2 peds/m length/m width)

50m length

2mwidth

Based on a walking pace of 5km / hr





50m length

50m length

50m length

50m length

2mwidth

2mwidth

2mwidth

2mwidth


Combined density (users/hr/m)*

Recommended arrangement

< 100 Shared use is usually appropriate (cycles give way).

101 – 199 Segregation may be considered.

> 200 Segregation should be considered.

11/04/202359

Segregated Cycleways Off-Carriageway Facilities

Carriageway

2.4m

2.4m

2.4m

Fo

otp

ath

SegregatedCycleway

0.8m 0.8m

Shared Cyclepath

Reminder tactilearea

'Start' and 'End'tactile area

2.4m

SegregatedCyclepath

Tramline tactile Ladder tactile

Max 50mmvertical kerb

SEGREGATED BY KERB

SEGREGATED BY CENTRALDELINEATOR STRIP (NOTE 2)

SEGREGATED BY VERGEPedestrians

OnlyCycles Only1.0m

Verge

Cycles Only

Cycles Only

PedestriansOnly

PedestriansOnly


11/04/202360

Shared Cycleways Off-Carriageway Facilities


Facility Width (m) Comments

Segregated cycleway or cyclepath

One way cycles only Desirable Minimum

2.0 Operates satisfactorily for one-way flows of up to 150 cycles per hour with minimal overtaking anticipated.

Absolute Minimum

1.5 The running width required that is free from obstructions such as debris, gullies, line markings and street furniture.

Two way cycles only Desirable Minimum

3.0 Operates satisfactorily for two-way flows up to 300 cycles per hour.

Absolute Minimum

2.0* Operates satisfactorily for two-way flows of up to 200 cycles per hour free from obstructions such as debris, surface gullies, line markings and street furniture.

Pedestrian only space

Desirable Minimum

2.0 The minimum width in normal circumstances to permit unobstructed passage by opposing wheelchairs.

Absolute Minimum

1.5 Acceptable over short distances in specifically constrained environments, such as at bus stops or where obstacles are unavoidable (Transport Scotland 2009).

Shared cycleway or cyclepath

Pedestrian and cycle space

Desirable Minimum

3.0 Typically regarded as the minimum acceptable for combined flows of up to 300 per hour.

Absolute Minimum

2.0** Can operate for combined flows of up to 200 per hour but will require cycles and pedestrians to frequently take evasive action to pass each other.

* Widths as low as 1.5m may be acceptable over short distances where there is no alternative.** In particularly constrained situations or for combined flows of less than 100 per hour, a width of 1.5m may be considered over short distances

where no alternative is available.

Guidance also Provided for Clearances to Fixed Objects

11/04/202361

Cyclepaths Off-Carriageway Facilities


11/04/202362

Access Controls Off-Carriageway Facilities

Preferably two gaps

1.5m Preferred maxGap 1.2m absolute min

Lockable/removablebollard for maintenance

3.0m desirable min

Note: Rider meets barrier on left hand side first



11/04/202363


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202364

Overview

• Crossing Assessment

• At Grade Junctions & Crossings

• Grade Separated Junctions & Crossings

Junctions & Crossings


11/04/202365

At-Grade Crossing - Urban Junctions & Crossings


Diag No.956

Diag No.956

Build-out

Foot

way

Coloured surface preferred

Min 10m

Diag No.950Note: Distance plate DiagNo.572 may be applied.

Diag No.950

Extent of warningcontrasting colour

treatment

CyclepathCyclepath

Reflective bollards

Foot

way

Buff coloured blister tactile

Dimensions for Central Islands also Provided

11/04/202366

At-Grade Crossing - Rural Junctions & Crossings

Diag No.956

Verge

Diag No.956

Verge

Rumble strips(15mm height, verticalface not to exceed 6mm)

High Friction Surfacing(black calcined bauxite)should only be used onroads with speed limits> 40mph

Edge of carriageway marking

Diag No.1012.1(width of line 150mm)

Diag No.950 with supplementaryplate to diagram No. 950.1

XXX ydscrossingCycles

55m







2.5mabsoluteminimum

ChicaneRefer to Note 1

5.75m min

10m

Admiral™ or similarspecification bollards



Diag No.956

Drop kerb at crossing pointto be flush with carriageway.

Variable width

Verge

Diag No.956

10m desirable minimum

3.0m min

ChicaneRefer to Note 1

2.5m a

bsolute min

.

Min 10.0m

Extent of warningcontrasting colour

treatment

Min 5.0m


CyclescrossingXXX yds

CyclescrossingXXX yds


specification bollardsWhite Admiral™ or similar

11/04/202367

At-Grade Crossing - Dual Junctions & Crossings


11/04/202368

Side Road Crossings Junctions & Crossings

Buff coloured blister tactile Diag No.956

3.0m desirable minimum

Diag No.956

Diag No.602

Absolute min 2.5m(Refer to note 1)

Diag No.950Note: Distance plate DiagNo.572 may be applied.

Restrict on-street parkingto ensure visibility

Bendout

Diag 610Illuminated Bollard

(Refer to note 2)


11/04/202369

Roundabouts Junctions & Crossings

a) COMPACT ROUNDABOUTFOR USE BY MIXED TRAFFIC

Central overrun areamay be provided

Single lane entry andexit width (4.25m)

Narrow circulatinglane width (5-7m)

Toucan crossing(staggered)

Segregated cyclewayfacility

Priority crossing

Cycle lanes

Shared cycleway

b) ROUNDABOUT WITHCYCLEWAYS

ICD range of 25m-35m

Entry and exits are perpendicularto the centre of roundabout

Central island diameterrange of 16-25mm

Minimal flares on entries

It is recommended that the cyclewayshould be two-way wherever possible.

Red colouredblister tactile


Ladder tactile

For transitions referto Figure 6.8

Ladder tactile

Tramline and ladder tactiles toindicate segregated cycleway


11/04/202370

Grade Separation Junctions & Crossings

Pedestrians Cycles

Central delineator strip

1.4m

FIGURE 7.17A : NEW BRIDGE SECTION

3.0m min two way2.0m min one way 0.5m Clearance where practical

(Refer to Table 6.3)

Shared cycleway

FIGURE 7.17B : EXISTING ROAD BRIDGE SECTION

Existing parapets should be retained subjectto safety audit and monitoring

Where required, consideration shouldbe given to reducing carriageway lanewidths in order to widen the cycleway.

(Refer to Table 6.2) (Refer to Table 6.2 and 6.3)


11/04/202371


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202372

Planning for Cycle Parking

• Basic Requirements

• User Requirements

• Demand and Capacity Requirements

Cycle Parking


11/04/202373

Location & Access

• Proximity to Destinations

• Security

• On-street/Off-Street

Cycle Parking


11/04/202374

Detailed Design Cycle Parking

Sheffieldstands

1.8m Absoluteminimumclearance

0.9m

1.2m Desirable Min1.0m Absolute Min




0.9m

2.5m Desirableminimumclearance

1500mm

1500mm

Parallel Configuration

150

0m

m

In Line Configuration

Recommended 1500mm access aisles around three sides of units.

Note: All dimensions are in millimetres

650mm 900mm typ. 1500mm

190

0m

m1

50

0m

m1

50

0m

m

Unit height : 1400mmDoor Opening : /50mmDoor Arcs : 95°


11/04/202375


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202376

Overview

• Importance of Integration

• Bike and Ride

• Cycle Carriage

• Public Cycle Hire

Public Transport


11/04/202377

Integration

• Links to Rail Stations

• Parking at Stations

• Buses, Coaches & Ferries

• Cycle Hire Schemes

Public Transport


11/04/202378


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202379

Overview

• Sustainability

• Construction within Carriageway

• Construction outwith Carriageway

• Lighting

• Maintenance Regime

Construction/Maintenance


11/04/202380

Cycleway Construction/Maintenance

Fall=2.5%

Surface Course

Binder Course

Subbase

300x100mm Class ST 1concrete kerb foundation and haunch

200x50mm flat-toppedP.C heel kerb, laid flush

FORMATION

Kerb detail asrequired

375x150mm Class ST1concrete kerb foundation

and haunch

Typical road drainageRefer to note ii

Margin. (refer to note iii)


11/04/202381

Rural Cyclepath Construction/Maintenance

Minimum 60mm deep layer of DBM(14mm stone). Path to have minimum

2.5% camber on dismantled railway, fallto suit tie-ins at disused road.

2500mm Shared cyclepath

Formation to be sprayed with approvednon-toxic weedkiller

Minimum 100mm deep sub-base ofType 1, compacted to refusal.

Use additional Type 1 to blind off anyexposed geotextile, and build up edgeof path. Difference between level ofpath edge and verge to be between40mm and 60mm.

Desirable width of soft verge 500m

Geotextile

3500mm

500mm

Absolute minimum width of Type 1verge to be 300mm. Desirableminimum width to be 500mm.

FORMATION


11/04/202382

Maintenance - Sweeping Construction/Maintenance


11/04/202383

Maintenance - Cutting Construction/Maintenance


11/04/202384


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202385

Trunk Road Audit Process Cycle Audit Overview

• Cycle Audit part of wider audit process on Trunk Roads

• Road Safety Audits and Accessibility Audits also undertaken

• Key Principle – Designers design, Auditors audit

• Audits to advise Designers/Project Sponsor of issues for consideration

• Final decisions on priorities taken by the Designer/Project Sponsor, not the Auditors

• Audits need to be seen in the context of the scheme as a whole


11/04/202386

Avoiding Imbalanced Needs Cycle Audit Overview

Source: David Owen / Warrington Cycle Campaign


11/04/202387

Audits in Scotland

The objectives of Cycle Audit are as follows:

• To ensure that the current and future needs of cyclists within a scheme are recognised and developed;

• To ensure that the infrastructure provided for cyclists is in accordance with current best practice; and

• To ensure that there are no elements of infrastructure within a scheme that will endanger or unnecessarily impede cyclists or other users.

Cycle Audit Overview

Key Objective – Meeting the Needs of Cyclists


11/04/202388

Roles & ResponsibilitiesProject Sponsor • Key responsibility: approval• Agreeing the terms of reference for the scheme• Providing appropriate background information • Approves proposed Design Team Cycle Auditor

Design Team Leader • Key responsibility: facilitation. • Ensure that the objectives of the scheme are fully understood by

team• Ensures audit findings process flows through to the design itself• Proposes the Design Team Cycle Auditor

Design Team Cycle Auditor • Key responsibility: to set cycling objectives and audit design

against them• Consults with stakeholders, analyses & gathers of background data• Available to discuss issues and advise design team – a continuous

process

Cycle Audit Overview


11/04/202389

Process Overview

Objective Setting and Context Report

Cycle Audit in Action

Preliminary Design Audit (Stage 1 Cycle Audit)

Detailed Design Audit (Stage 2 Cycle Audit)

Post-Construction Audit(Stage 3 Cycle Audit)

Progression from Each Stage only after Project Sponsor Approval


11/04/202390

Context Report

• Undertaken before design commences

• Aim: to provide designers with an understanding of cyclists’ needs

• Review trip patterns

• Generators/attractors

• User characteristics

• Opportunities and constraints

• Consult with stakeholders

• Define scheme objectives



11/04/202391

S1 & S2 Design Audits

• Undertaken at key points in design process

• Aim: to check that design meets with defined objectives

• Demonstrate to Project Sponsor that cyclists’ needs are being met

• Check compliance with current best practice

• Highlight scheme constraints where limitations may apply for consideration



11/04/202392

Post Construction Audit

• Undertaken once scheme in use

• Aim: check the detail

• Have objectives been met in practice?

• How are cyclists using the scheme?

• Is the route clear as expected?

• Is the quality of infrastructure right?

• Did anything change during construction?

• Are Improvements Possible?



11/04/202393


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202394

Appendix A

• Details key features of principal legislation

• Roads (Scotland) Act

• Road Traffic Regulation Act

• Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act

• Land Reform (Scotland) Act

• Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005

• Equality Act 2010

Appendices


11/04/202395

Appendix B

• General design principles on signs and markings

• Sign sizes

• Avoiding ambiguity and coherence

• Legislation and guidance

• Examples

Appendices

Diag No 955Route for use by pedal cycles only

Diag No 956Route for use by pedal cycles

and pedestrians only

Diag No 957Route comprising two ways, separatedby the marking shown in Diag No. 1049or 1049.1 or by physical means, for useby pedal cycles only and by pedestrians

Diag No 958With-flow bus lane ahead

Diag No 958.1With-flow cycle lane ahead

Diag No 956With-flow bus lane which pedal cycles may

also use. Note: Any vehicle may enter the buslane to stop, load or unload where this is

not prohibited

Diag No 959.1With-flow cycle lane

Diag No 960Contra-flow bus lane.

Note: Any vehicle may enter thebus lane to stop, load or unload

where this is not prohibited.(Cycle symbol may be added

below the bus symbol)

Diag No 960.1Contra-flow cycle lane

Diag No 962.1Cycle lane on road at junction

ahead or cycle track crossing roadDiag No 963.1

Cycle lane with traffic proceeding from right(Sign for pedestrians)

Diag No 952.1Cycle lane on road at junction

ahead or cycle track crossing road

Diag No 962.2Contra-flow bus lane which pedalcycles may also use on road at

junction ahead

Diag No 968Parking for pedal cycles


96 11/04/2023

Evolution of Cycling By Design Beyond 2010 Edition


11/04/202397

Beyond CBD 2010

• Account will be taken of future legislation/design changes

• Learning from implementation

• Comments welcomed from users of the document, cycling groups and individuals

• Document will evolve over time

• Acknowledgement that UK research base limited

• Further research may be undertaken

Evolution


98 11/04/2023

Summary


11/04/202399

Summary

• CBD 2010 incorporates changes to legislation, latest best practice and stakeholder comment

• Document includes simpler navigation; more focus on guidance rather than policy

• Clearer definitions and emphasis on cyclist needs

• Cycle Audit system - an objective led approach

• Complements Other Scottish Government Policy

• Requirement on Trunk Roads

• Commended to others

• Understanding needs is key to success


100

Are we different from the market leaders

CROW vs CBD?

101

Cycling Scotland 2012 Conference

Think Bike Workshop

102

How to design Bicycle facilitiesSafety

Attractiveness

Directness

Cohesion

Comfort

5 mainrequirements

103

Sustainable Safety

Function, form and usein balance, from road

safety point of view

function: use of the road as intended by the road authoritydesign: the physical design and layout properties of the infrastructureuse: actual use of the infrastructure and behaviour of the road user

Functionof road

Designof road

Useof road

104

Road categorization Through roads: Long distance traffic Distributor roads: Connects areas Access roads: Access to properties Urban area: Distributor road Access road

Consequences:• Network• Routes

• Sections• Junctions

105

1970’s: Turning point

Workshop - What changed their mind?

106

Space

107

Traffic lights at National Museum:

± 20 cars in 40 seconds

> 50 cyclists in 10 seconds

Time

108

109

How to design Network

110

Single lane roundabout:

Outside build-up areaPriority to cars

Multi lane roundabout:

Junction / crossing

111

112

Bicycle is King

A81

TP&E 2013/14 - Initial Design (Funding)

Design - Issues• Car Parking • Residential

• Railway Stations• Shop - Hubs• Side Roads

• Existing Design (Monoblock)• Driveways

• Drainage (Cost)• White Lining (Removal)

• Existing Surface

Review Segregation

Question – What type of segregation?

TP&E 2013/14 - Initial Design (Funding)

Review Segregation

What type? Segregation (Recent)

1) Ireland – Design Manual2) London

3) Barcelona4) Glasgow

Design Considerations

·Bus Corridor (3.2m)·Development (Cala and Waitrose)·Segregated Cycle Infrastructure ·Behaviour Change·Local Hub Design (Kessington and Hillfoot)·Links with existing network·Residential Car Parking·Junction Capacity

Considered during Initial Design• Cost • Drainage• Underground Services – Water

Workshop

Which segregation and why

What would you do at the hubs? Shared Space / Segregation?

What would you do at driveways?

120

Route Objectives

1. Remove Physical Barrier2. Segregated Facility

3. Quality Infrastructure – Central Station – Destination

4. Deprived Area5. Active Travel and Route Connections

121

Existing Route - Characteristics

Town CentreGrid Plan

Main East / West LinksOrigin / Destination

Route set by Bridge and Station

122

Workshop - On Road Design

Waterloo Street

One Way Street – Towards M8

3 Travelling Lanes – Bus Stops/RouteNorth Side of Street – Horizontal Parking

123

Workshop – On Road Design

On Road Designs – Split into your groups and discuss the provisions including the width of cycle facility you would install on Waterloo Street:

124

125

Workshop

Junctions and Crossings

126

Workshop - Crossing

Waterloo Street

Side Road Entrances

Pedestrians

The floor is open to you to question or discuss any of the topics we’ve discussed

Thank You